[r-t] Does a rotation by any other name smell as sweet?

Alexander Holroyd holroyd at math.ubc.ca
Wed Oct 22 01:29:29 UTC 2014

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Iain Anderson wrote:

> So if they are not banned, are they allowed?
> I think we all agree that they are not needed, but then neither are singles 
> in Stedman Triples.  Sometimes things that we don't need can still be useful.
> Surely the main reason for insisting on a canonical name for all variations 
> is that we are confident that no one will ever come up with an example where 
> allowing alternative names is more useful and/or desirable.

Quite so, and in fact some of us would not be so confident of that claim, 
when it comes to rotations.  There is at least one actual case in point - 
see below.  Not the most exciting extent in the world, but it was quite 
fun to ring, and spliced Arlesey and Helen is most definitely how the band 
thought of it.  At the time, it was not even permitted to described as 
Arlesey with call that changes the lead length.

720 Spliced Plain Minor (2m)
Alexander E Holroyd

       4  23456
AAAA  -  23564
AAAA  s  23654
HHHH  -  62345
HHHH  s  36245
HHHH  s  23645
HHHH  -  62354
AAAA  -  62543 |
AAAA  s  62453 |X
HHHH  s  46253 |
    2X    23456

Arlesey Bob: -1-1-25, le 1 (135246)
Helen Bob: -1-1-1, le 25 (135246)

bob = 14
single = 1456

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list